Doug:
There seems to be a bit of evidence that suggests that Republicans are very sensitive to perceptions versus reality in how they feel about their lives. This could perhaps explain why Republicans appear to be inconsistent: one minute they feel one way, but the next they feel another. What changed? Who was elected. A gut reaction might be "sure, but Democrats are too!" But this isn't true. Consider these three cases:
On the economy: At the end of the Obama presidency, only 31% of Republicans thought that the economy was in good shape. But instantly, when Trump took office, 61% of Republicans now think the economy is doing fine. Democratic views didn't change at all (57% at the end of Obama's tenure thought that the economy was fine, and now that figure is 60%, within the margin of error). From Pew research.
On bombing Syria: 22% of Republicans polled under Obama were for bombing Syria; under Trump Republicans now are 86% for bombing Syria. Democrats, again, didn't change their opinion: under Obama, 38% of Democrats polled supportive of bombing Syria, while under Trump the percentage was 37% (within the margin of error). From ABC/Washington Post survey.
On income tax: polled on the question "does the amount of taxes you pay seem fair to you?" Under Obama, 39% of Republicans said it was fair, while under Trump, the number of polled Republicans that think what they pay is fair jumped to 56%, even though they hadn't paid any taxes under Trump yet. From a Gallup poll.
I can understand a little sway, but these are huge swings, and all are consistently inconsistent with Republicans. Do you find this problematic? It seems to me that if beliefs are based in perceptions rather than reality, then that will be a very hard group of people to deal with. How do you convince them if they can be swayed so much by perception?
David:
I've noticed that you weigh consistency heavily in how you evaluate others. You bring up inconsistency often in the blog. I don't think that in itself is a fault, and probably reflects your scientific mindset. However, I do think you paint broad pictures without paying attention to the specifics when it suits you, finding inconsistency when there is none. Did I criticize President Obama for using executive orders, but am not critical when President Trump uses executive orders? Yes. But I'm not against executive orders. I was against the specific executive orders Obama was signing. I'm against using executive orders to unconstitutionally expand the Executive's power. I am not against using executive orders to decrease the size or scope of government. There's a difference. There is not inconsistency.
Doug:
I actually didn't mention you in the three cases above. But let's look at what you said before: "...instead of working with all of Congress, [Obama] passed his own executive orders, and then blamed Republicans for making him do it. Arrogant is the word that comes to mind. Arrogant and condescending." But when Trump uses the executive order, he is just fulfilling his campaign pledges, you said. Does the so-called Muslim Ban decrease the scope of the government? No. In fact it increases the scope. Trump can't "blame" congress... he didn't try to work with congress on immigration yet. So even though I didn't mention your inconsistency above, I find your comments on the use of the executive order to be very inconsistent.
David:
At least you're consistent. You again fail to put the comments into context and only see inconsistency. Details matter.
In the example you have chosen, Obama said repeatedly that he did not have the Constitutional authority to just create laws by executive order and needed Congress to pass legislation. When they didn't, he then decided he did have the authority and created new laws by executive order. That was wrong, arrogant, and illegal, and the courts agreed that he did not have that authority. He did blame Republicans for making him do it because he claimed he would not have made that move if they had only legislated what he demanded.
Doug:
Obama tried to work with congress. They weren't going to play. So he went the executive order route. Trump did not try to work with congress. He went directly with executive orders. I don't see how the path to the outcome matters. The results are the same. That appears to many people as an inconsistency.
David:
The Constitution specifically details what each branch of the government is responsible for, and what they are allowed to do. The executive branch cannot create law. The path does matter, as a rule of law. As I said, the courts have agreed that Obama overstepped his bounds with some of his executive orders.
I also admire your consistency in calling Trump's executive order a "Muslim Ban", when it is no such thing. It was a temporary halt to all immigration (not based on religion) from selected countries for national security purposes, which is a task specifically outlined for the President within the US Constitution. Performing duties that are provided within the Constitution does not expand the scope of the Executive Branch.
Doug:
But this ban was halted because it appears to be a "Muslim Ban." This will likely end up in the Supreme Court.
David:
But appearance is not the same as being. The language of the order is specific.
Doug:
Hey, don't tell me... tell the supreme court! (However, for them intentions do matter, and that may be the downfall of the ban.)
David:
You're right that we will see what the SCOTUS determines. That's where it's headed.
You've stated that Republicans are somehow different than Democrats regarding perception versus reality. I think most studies actually show that there is no difference, and this is a trait shared across political spectrums, gender, race, and cultures.
Doug:
I've pointed to three different polls that demonstrate that Republicans are different from Democrats. I don't know what "most studies" you refer.
David:
But let's look at your first study regarding the economy. Trump was elected in November. This poll question was asked in April of this year. That's a six month spread. That isn't exactly an instant change. During that time, Carrier, Ford, GM, Fiat, Apple, Intel, and other mid to large sized corporations have said they are staying, building, and investing in plants and expansion here in the US. Billions are being invested in these companies, and they are actively hiring more workers. The stock market has hit all-time record highs, which is a marker of optimism for the economy. These are signs the economy is healthy and should do well in the future. I would answer that the economy is in better shape than it was before Trump was elected. The poll question was not "Is the economy in good shape?" The question was "The current economic situation in our country is..." good or bad? The majority of Americans, in all groups, said the economy is good. 60% of the general population said it is good compared to 44% at the same time last year. I'l grant that Republicans are slightly more impressed than the general population, because we see our policies being put into place, and we believe that will bring economic growth after years of lackluster growth under a regulation-heavy administration. I assume the reason Democrat's numbers are lower than the general population's answers is their view that Republican policies are not good for the country, and won't equal growth. Too bad for them.
Doug:
If this could be explained away by politics, then you would expect that Democratic views would be higher under a Democratic president. But the Democratic views didn't change. It was consistent regardless of who the president was. That is my point about consistency.
David:
Or, Democrats just don't understand economics...
Doug:
But my point is that the Democrats are consistent, however you dismiss it. Ok, check. Next.
David:
I'm actually serious. If your numbers are correct (multiple other polls show they are not), then Democrats don't think that it makes any difference whether you have high taxes or low taxes. They don't see any difference for the economy whether corporations stay in the US, invest billions of dollars in factories and hiring, or if they move to Mexico. They apparently don't see dropping the corporate tax rate from one of the highest in the world to one of the lowest as having any influence on our economic trajectory. For them, it doesn't matter who's in the White House. That seems to indicate a very fundamental lack of economic understanding. Either that, or your numbers are wrong.
Doug:
There is another option: Republicans are inconsistent in a way that Democrats are not.
David:
If I'm a gambler, I can bet on horse number four in race after race. That would be very consistent. If I bet on horse number four when that horse shows up at the gate with a broken leg, I may be consistent, but also not very smart. I obviously don't understand how horse racing works. Recognizing fluid variables and changing your actions or opinions based on real-world information is also consistent, if you do it regularly. Having the same opinion all of the time, despite changes in those variables is not a good thing. It indicates rigid thinking.
Doug:
Two things I just learned: (1) you should not gamble, and (2) you are trying to "spin" this poll in a way that it just can't go. Here is a graph of the poll data over time:
The blue line is the Democrats; the red line is the Republicans. If Democrats are "stupid gamblers" who won't change their minds, you'd expect that line to be flat. But it isn't. Again, what explains these data better is that Republicans are inconsistent.
David:
The two lines parallel each other. If Democrats were consistent, as you say, their line should be flat.
As to your second case regarding Syria, the numbers are comparing apples and oranges. Again, you're looking at the broad picture without paying any attention to the specifics.
Doug:
But can't you use that excuse whenever differences are noted? "Oh, you just aren't looking close enough at the details! You see the first case was on a Tuesday. This one is a Wednesday. That explains the difference!" Let's see your apples and oranges.
David:
Details matter.
In 2013, when Obama famously drew his imaginary red line, no one in America was interested in getting into another war, no diplomatic efforts had been undertaken, and the situation in Syria was much different. In 2017, all of the chemical weapons were supposed to have been removed, Russia was supposed to have guaranteed their removal, and US troops are now located nearby. Russia and Syria lied, and have shown they have no fear of using weapons of mass destruction flippantly in the face of coalition and humanitarian forces. There was good reason to reinforce our diplomacy with force in this instance. I, for one, would have supported Obama's use of a similar strike back in 2013.
Doug:
Uh huh. Well, there is no evidence of that, and I'm not talking about you. But Republicans polled in 2013 disagreed with you. So maybe you are more consistent than many Republicans.
David:
It isn't a matter of consistency. It's a matter of evaluating all of the information at hand and deciding what is the best action to take at that time. If important variables have changed, you may need to take a different action than you did before.
Doug:
And yet, you just said that you would have sided with Obama, where your fellow Republicans did not. I'm not arguing that your fellow Republicans didn't see things differently. I am arguing that they do, even when there is no difference.
David:
But I didn't say I would have supported Obama for the same reason as I support Trump's move. Obama made a dunderheaded statement drawing a red line. When he failed to execute a response, it hurt the countries standing, and weakened our negotiating position. If he had not placed us in that position, I would not have supported the move.
If anything, I think the case you show indicates Republicans, along with the rest of America, recognize a dynamic situation, and can change their opinion not because of who is in the White House, but what is going on in real-time on the ground. It also indicates that only 35-40% of Democrats support using the military, ever. Whether it's the use of weapons of mass destruction, or outright genocide, it appears that 60-65% of Democrats will never support the use of the military, no matter who's in the White House, or what's going on in the world.
Doug:
That is called consistency. Check. Next.
David:
Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result is also being very consistent. It's also been said that is the definition of insanity.
Doug:
But you just said that you would have supported Obama's use of force. Does that make you insane? But you forgot about the inconsistency on taxes. How do you explain that Democratic consistency?
David:
Just saying that consistency is not always the best or only marker to keep track of.
I didn't forget, we just haven't gotten here yet. I was unable to link to the original Gallup poll through the article you had as your link, but went straight to the original poll without all of the filters. (Perhaps you thought that linking to a republished Vox analysis of a Gallup poll in The Christian Science Monitor might lend it more credence?)
Doug:
In all three cases I linked to analysis of the data.
David:
Several things draw my interest in this poll. This poll was also done this April, over 5 months after Trump was elected. One of his promises was to decrease taxes, but also to spend government money on different priorities than Obama had. With that in mind, it is true that Republicans find the taxes they are paying to be more fair now than before.
Doug:
That is my one and only point.
David:
Only 4% of Democrats found their taxes to be different now than before. 14% of Republicans now feel that way compared with their taxes under Obama. Interestingly, 13% of independents also feel their taxes are fair now compared to Obama's term. Even the folks at Gallup felt "the increase this year may suggest that Americans are anticipating a tax cut from Trump". If you feel your tax dollars are spent on the things you believe are important for the government to be spending tax dollars on, you are likely to feel your money is well spent.
Doug:
Sure, I don't mind you explaining their inconsistencies away by saying that it is based on perception of what, someday, may happen. In some ways, that makes it even worse. Your explanation of why they change their mind is completely detached from reality. For example, the "short term" budget (lasts until September 2017) just passed the House, and looks nothing like what Trump claimed it would:
These are increases in spending across the board, except for a few percentage decrease in EPA and DOE. Where is this money coming from? Either we will spend what we don't have, or we raise taxes. Will Republicans' opinion change based on the facts? Hard to tell.
David:
The same Gallup poll, if done today, might reflect the disappointment Republicans feel with this CR bill.
An additional finding in the Gallup poll, which has remained consistent for years, is that only 4% of Americans feel their taxes are too low. Even among Democrats, almost none of them think we should raise taxes. (You might be the only one, actually.) The majority of Americans still feel that taxes are too high.
Doug:
That is a tricky one. For example, many might believe that we could reallocate DOD spending to better uses, and thus we don't need to pay more, but spend better. But that is a separate point because Democrats are consistent. Check.
David:
It isn't tricky. Essentially no one thinks we pay too much in taxes, and no one wants their taxes raised. Republicans, and everyone else, is consistent in this thinking.
In looking back through years of polling, Gallup found that Americans feel taxes are less fair when a Democrat is in office, and they feel that taxes are fairer when a Republican is at the helm. that also appears to be a consistent finding.
One last question regarding a huge inconsistency among Democratic office holders: At the national level, corporations are usually typecast as greedy, evil, and anti-labor.
Doug:
No, but I understand that is how you see it. Go ahead...
David:
Donald Trump was roundly criticized for offering incentives, like tax breaks, to encourage corporations to stay in the US. But at the state and local level, Democratic governors and mayors offer those same incentives to try to woo those same corporations to build their factories in their states or cities, because they recognize the investment and jobs these "evil" corporations bring to their constituents. Corporations are good for communities, but bad for the country? Or is it only bad for a Republican to secure a valuable job-producer for a community, but good for a Democrat? That seems terribly inconsistent to me.
Doug:
You are absolutely right, but the inconsistency is in your Republican perception. Which, lines up exactly with the data, and how I started this post: "There seems to be a bit of evidence that suggests that Republicans are very sensitive to perceptions versus reality in how they feel about their lives."
David:
I'm absolutely right, but somehow that means that Democrats are consistent, and Republicans are not? A Democratic mayor giving away tax breaks to lure a major corporation to town is not a perception. That's a reality that occurs everyday.
One other American consistency I noted recently was the Washington Post poll that showed that if the election was held in April, 2017, Donald Trump would have won again. Hillary is still a loser. In fact, she would now lose the popular vote as well, as some Democrats have changed their minds. Ah, the sweet smell of consistency...
At the end of the day, I think it is good to be consistent in your philosophy. But details may cause you to express opinions that may seem inconsistent, or even contradictory, under a very superficial scrutiny. Details matter and variables change. The world is dynamic. The only thing that is truly consistent, is change.
There seems to be a bit of evidence that suggests that Republicans are very sensitive to perceptions versus reality in how they feel about their lives. This could perhaps explain why Republicans appear to be inconsistent: one minute they feel one way, but the next they feel another. What changed? Who was elected. A gut reaction might be "sure, but Democrats are too!" But this isn't true. Consider these three cases:
On the economy: At the end of the Obama presidency, only 31% of Republicans thought that the economy was in good shape. But instantly, when Trump took office, 61% of Republicans now think the economy is doing fine. Democratic views didn't change at all (57% at the end of Obama's tenure thought that the economy was fine, and now that figure is 60%, within the margin of error). From Pew research.
On bombing Syria: 22% of Republicans polled under Obama were for bombing Syria; under Trump Republicans now are 86% for bombing Syria. Democrats, again, didn't change their opinion: under Obama, 38% of Democrats polled supportive of bombing Syria, while under Trump the percentage was 37% (within the margin of error). From ABC/Washington Post survey.
On income tax: polled on the question "does the amount of taxes you pay seem fair to you?" Under Obama, 39% of Republicans said it was fair, while under Trump, the number of polled Republicans that think what they pay is fair jumped to 56%, even though they hadn't paid any taxes under Trump yet. From a Gallup poll.
I can understand a little sway, but these are huge swings, and all are consistently inconsistent with Republicans. Do you find this problematic? It seems to me that if beliefs are based in perceptions rather than reality, then that will be a very hard group of people to deal with. How do you convince them if they can be swayed so much by perception?
David:
I've noticed that you weigh consistency heavily in how you evaluate others. You bring up inconsistency often in the blog. I don't think that in itself is a fault, and probably reflects your scientific mindset. However, I do think you paint broad pictures without paying attention to the specifics when it suits you, finding inconsistency when there is none. Did I criticize President Obama for using executive orders, but am not critical when President Trump uses executive orders? Yes. But I'm not against executive orders. I was against the specific executive orders Obama was signing. I'm against using executive orders to unconstitutionally expand the Executive's power. I am not against using executive orders to decrease the size or scope of government. There's a difference. There is not inconsistency.
Doug:
I actually didn't mention you in the three cases above. But let's look at what you said before: "...instead of working with all of Congress, [Obama] passed his own executive orders, and then blamed Republicans for making him do it. Arrogant is the word that comes to mind. Arrogant and condescending." But when Trump uses the executive order, he is just fulfilling his campaign pledges, you said. Does the so-called Muslim Ban decrease the scope of the government? No. In fact it increases the scope. Trump can't "blame" congress... he didn't try to work with congress on immigration yet. So even though I didn't mention your inconsistency above, I find your comments on the use of the executive order to be very inconsistent.
David:
At least you're consistent. You again fail to put the comments into context and only see inconsistency. Details matter.
In the example you have chosen, Obama said repeatedly that he did not have the Constitutional authority to just create laws by executive order and needed Congress to pass legislation. When they didn't, he then decided he did have the authority and created new laws by executive order. That was wrong, arrogant, and illegal, and the courts agreed that he did not have that authority. He did blame Republicans for making him do it because he claimed he would not have made that move if they had only legislated what he demanded.
Doug:
Obama tried to work with congress. They weren't going to play. So he went the executive order route. Trump did not try to work with congress. He went directly with executive orders. I don't see how the path to the outcome matters. The results are the same. That appears to many people as an inconsistency.
David:
The Constitution specifically details what each branch of the government is responsible for, and what they are allowed to do. The executive branch cannot create law. The path does matter, as a rule of law. As I said, the courts have agreed that Obama overstepped his bounds with some of his executive orders.
I also admire your consistency in calling Trump's executive order a "Muslim Ban", when it is no such thing. It was a temporary halt to all immigration (not based on religion) from selected countries for national security purposes, which is a task specifically outlined for the President within the US Constitution. Performing duties that are provided within the Constitution does not expand the scope of the Executive Branch.
Doug:
But this ban was halted because it appears to be a "Muslim Ban." This will likely end up in the Supreme Court.
David:
But appearance is not the same as being. The language of the order is specific.
Doug:
Hey, don't tell me... tell the supreme court! (However, for them intentions do matter, and that may be the downfall of the ban.)
David:
You're right that we will see what the SCOTUS determines. That's where it's headed.
You've stated that Republicans are somehow different than Democrats regarding perception versus reality. I think most studies actually show that there is no difference, and this is a trait shared across political spectrums, gender, race, and cultures.
Doug:
I've pointed to three different polls that demonstrate that Republicans are different from Democrats. I don't know what "most studies" you refer.
David:
But let's look at your first study regarding the economy. Trump was elected in November. This poll question was asked in April of this year. That's a six month spread. That isn't exactly an instant change. During that time, Carrier, Ford, GM, Fiat, Apple, Intel, and other mid to large sized corporations have said they are staying, building, and investing in plants and expansion here in the US. Billions are being invested in these companies, and they are actively hiring more workers. The stock market has hit all-time record highs, which is a marker of optimism for the economy. These are signs the economy is healthy and should do well in the future. I would answer that the economy is in better shape than it was before Trump was elected. The poll question was not "Is the economy in good shape?" The question was "The current economic situation in our country is..." good or bad? The majority of Americans, in all groups, said the economy is good. 60% of the general population said it is good compared to 44% at the same time last year. I'l grant that Republicans are slightly more impressed than the general population, because we see our policies being put into place, and we believe that will bring economic growth after years of lackluster growth under a regulation-heavy administration. I assume the reason Democrat's numbers are lower than the general population's answers is their view that Republican policies are not good for the country, and won't equal growth. Too bad for them.
Doug:
If this could be explained away by politics, then you would expect that Democratic views would be higher under a Democratic president. But the Democratic views didn't change. It was consistent regardless of who the president was. That is my point about consistency.
David:
Or, Democrats just don't understand economics...
Doug:
But my point is that the Democrats are consistent, however you dismiss it. Ok, check. Next.
David:
I'm actually serious. If your numbers are correct (multiple other polls show they are not), then Democrats don't think that it makes any difference whether you have high taxes or low taxes. They don't see any difference for the economy whether corporations stay in the US, invest billions of dollars in factories and hiring, or if they move to Mexico. They apparently don't see dropping the corporate tax rate from one of the highest in the world to one of the lowest as having any influence on our economic trajectory. For them, it doesn't matter who's in the White House. That seems to indicate a very fundamental lack of economic understanding. Either that, or your numbers are wrong.
Doug:
There is another option: Republicans are inconsistent in a way that Democrats are not.
David:
If I'm a gambler, I can bet on horse number four in race after race. That would be very consistent. If I bet on horse number four when that horse shows up at the gate with a broken leg, I may be consistent, but also not very smart. I obviously don't understand how horse racing works. Recognizing fluid variables and changing your actions or opinions based on real-world information is also consistent, if you do it regularly. Having the same opinion all of the time, despite changes in those variables is not a good thing. It indicates rigid thinking.
Doug:
Two things I just learned: (1) you should not gamble, and (2) you are trying to "spin" this poll in a way that it just can't go. Here is a graph of the poll data over time:
The blue line is the Democrats; the red line is the Republicans. If Democrats are "stupid gamblers" who won't change their minds, you'd expect that line to be flat. But it isn't. Again, what explains these data better is that Republicans are inconsistent.
David:
The two lines parallel each other. If Democrats were consistent, as you say, their line should be flat.
As to your second case regarding Syria, the numbers are comparing apples and oranges. Again, you're looking at the broad picture without paying any attention to the specifics.
Doug:
But can't you use that excuse whenever differences are noted? "Oh, you just aren't looking close enough at the details! You see the first case was on a Tuesday. This one is a Wednesday. That explains the difference!" Let's see your apples and oranges.
David:
Details matter.
In 2013, when Obama famously drew his imaginary red line, no one in America was interested in getting into another war, no diplomatic efforts had been undertaken, and the situation in Syria was much different. In 2017, all of the chemical weapons were supposed to have been removed, Russia was supposed to have guaranteed their removal, and US troops are now located nearby. Russia and Syria lied, and have shown they have no fear of using weapons of mass destruction flippantly in the face of coalition and humanitarian forces. There was good reason to reinforce our diplomacy with force in this instance. I, for one, would have supported Obama's use of a similar strike back in 2013.
Doug:
Uh huh. Well, there is no evidence of that, and I'm not talking about you. But Republicans polled in 2013 disagreed with you. So maybe you are more consistent than many Republicans.
David:
It isn't a matter of consistency. It's a matter of evaluating all of the information at hand and deciding what is the best action to take at that time. If important variables have changed, you may need to take a different action than you did before.
Doug:
And yet, you just said that you would have sided with Obama, where your fellow Republicans did not. I'm not arguing that your fellow Republicans didn't see things differently. I am arguing that they do, even when there is no difference.
David:
But I didn't say I would have supported Obama for the same reason as I support Trump's move. Obama made a dunderheaded statement drawing a red line. When he failed to execute a response, it hurt the countries standing, and weakened our negotiating position. If he had not placed us in that position, I would not have supported the move.
If anything, I think the case you show indicates Republicans, along with the rest of America, recognize a dynamic situation, and can change their opinion not because of who is in the White House, but what is going on in real-time on the ground. It also indicates that only 35-40% of Democrats support using the military, ever. Whether it's the use of weapons of mass destruction, or outright genocide, it appears that 60-65% of Democrats will never support the use of the military, no matter who's in the White House, or what's going on in the world.
Doug:
That is called consistency. Check. Next.
David:
Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result is also being very consistent. It's also been said that is the definition of insanity.
Doug:
But you just said that you would have supported Obama's use of force. Does that make you insane? But you forgot about the inconsistency on taxes. How do you explain that Democratic consistency?
David:
Just saying that consistency is not always the best or only marker to keep track of.
I didn't forget, we just haven't gotten here yet. I was unable to link to the original Gallup poll through the article you had as your link, but went straight to the original poll without all of the filters. (Perhaps you thought that linking to a republished Vox analysis of a Gallup poll in The Christian Science Monitor might lend it more credence?)
Doug:
In all three cases I linked to analysis of the data.
David:
Several things draw my interest in this poll. This poll was also done this April, over 5 months after Trump was elected. One of his promises was to decrease taxes, but also to spend government money on different priorities than Obama had. With that in mind, it is true that Republicans find the taxes they are paying to be more fair now than before.
Doug:
That is my one and only point.
David:
Only 4% of Democrats found their taxes to be different now than before. 14% of Republicans now feel that way compared with their taxes under Obama. Interestingly, 13% of independents also feel their taxes are fair now compared to Obama's term. Even the folks at Gallup felt "the increase this year may suggest that Americans are anticipating a tax cut from Trump". If you feel your tax dollars are spent on the things you believe are important for the government to be spending tax dollars on, you are likely to feel your money is well spent.
Doug:
Sure, I don't mind you explaining their inconsistencies away by saying that it is based on perception of what, someday, may happen. In some ways, that makes it even worse. Your explanation of why they change their mind is completely detached from reality. For example, the "short term" budget (lasts until September 2017) just passed the House, and looks nothing like what Trump claimed it would:
These are increases in spending across the board, except for a few percentage decrease in EPA and DOE. Where is this money coming from? Either we will spend what we don't have, or we raise taxes. Will Republicans' opinion change based on the facts? Hard to tell.
David:
The same Gallup poll, if done today, might reflect the disappointment Republicans feel with this CR bill.
An additional finding in the Gallup poll, which has remained consistent for years, is that only 4% of Americans feel their taxes are too low. Even among Democrats, almost none of them think we should raise taxes. (You might be the only one, actually.) The majority of Americans still feel that taxes are too high.
Doug:
That is a tricky one. For example, many might believe that we could reallocate DOD spending to better uses, and thus we don't need to pay more, but spend better. But that is a separate point because Democrats are consistent. Check.
David:
It isn't tricky. Essentially no one thinks we pay too much in taxes, and no one wants their taxes raised. Republicans, and everyone else, is consistent in this thinking.
In looking back through years of polling, Gallup found that Americans feel taxes are less fair when a Democrat is in office, and they feel that taxes are fairer when a Republican is at the helm. that also appears to be a consistent finding.
One last question regarding a huge inconsistency among Democratic office holders: At the national level, corporations are usually typecast as greedy, evil, and anti-labor.
Doug:
No, but I understand that is how you see it. Go ahead...
David:
Donald Trump was roundly criticized for offering incentives, like tax breaks, to encourage corporations to stay in the US. But at the state and local level, Democratic governors and mayors offer those same incentives to try to woo those same corporations to build their factories in their states or cities, because they recognize the investment and jobs these "evil" corporations bring to their constituents. Corporations are good for communities, but bad for the country? Or is it only bad for a Republican to secure a valuable job-producer for a community, but good for a Democrat? That seems terribly inconsistent to me.
Doug:
You are absolutely right, but the inconsistency is in your Republican perception. Which, lines up exactly with the data, and how I started this post: "There seems to be a bit of evidence that suggests that Republicans are very sensitive to perceptions versus reality in how they feel about their lives."
David:
I'm absolutely right, but somehow that means that Democrats are consistent, and Republicans are not? A Democratic mayor giving away tax breaks to lure a major corporation to town is not a perception. That's a reality that occurs everyday.
One other American consistency I noted recently was the Washington Post poll that showed that if the election was held in April, 2017, Donald Trump would have won again. Hillary is still a loser. In fact, she would now lose the popular vote as well, as some Democrats have changed their minds. Ah, the sweet smell of consistency...
At the end of the day, I think it is good to be consistent in your philosophy. But details may cause you to express opinions that may seem inconsistent, or even contradictory, under a very superficial scrutiny. Details matter and variables change. The world is dynamic. The only thing that is truly consistent, is change.
I might note the inconsistency in Democrats blasting FBI Director Comey for months, and demanding he be fired. Now that he's been fired, they are his biggest supporters, and scream "Watergate". Inconsistency, or just plain old political games?
ReplyDelete